The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 24

[acbytesla]

Candace Dempsey, the hack from Seattle, who thought she'd write a book from the Friends of Amanda POV? That one?


How thoughtful of her to chip in and offer Amanda a few 'explanations' she could use to explain various suspicious things.

Her claim is clearly rubbish.

Why?

Because she takes the stance that clearly Amanda Knox is innocent? You've also similarly dismissed Hellmann, Dr. Peter Gill, Detective John Douglas, Senator Cantwell, Judge Heavey, Ron Hendry, and pretty much anyone who doesn’t share your totally moronic and whacky view that Knox was involved.

I thought so.

 

[Stacyhs]

If the autopsy photos form part of the medical records and are ipso facto confidential, then by your logic, the entire autopsy report forms part of the medical records and are also ipso facto confidential.
That being the case, would you care to explain the autopsy report being provided to the public on TMofMK?

No one here, including me, has said it is proper to circulate graphic autopsy photographs. However, the one Duncan provided was not graphic at all as I showed.

You have provided no evidence that Duncan was " banned from twitter for her vaseline posts to the murder victim's family."

If the Vaseline tweet was the impetus, would you also care to explain why the picture was tweeted in August 2015 and Duncan wasn't banned until January 2016.?In fact, Duncan was banned for "flooding" (sending the same link to many people, unsolicited). She was sending the Amandaknoxcase link to reporters. The sound you hear is your false claim going down the toilet.

The autopsy report is quite different from autopsy photographs. They are not for your prurient interest.

You are proved wrong that the autopsy photos are any more "private" than the autopsy report which is available on TMofMK.

You fail to explain why, if Duncan was banned for the Vaseline tweet, she was only banned several months later.

I've never seen (nor care to see) the autopsy photos except for the highly edited and non-graphic photo I provided (twice). Why you state they are "not for your prurient interest" eludes me. Oh, wait...no it doesn't. It's pure Vixen.

 

[Stacyhs]

You do not understand how psychology works. Your two studies had nothing at all to do with what I was talking about, namely a 'heartrending harrowing scream', not someone having a passing conversation at a cocktail party.

Oh, excuse me....I was unaware of your degree in psychology, Doctor. Did you get this degree before or after you became an accountant?

They had everything to do with your statement that

Whilst eye witnesses may have faulty memory when it comes to visual events, audio memory is much stronger (for example, someone deep in a coma can respond to an auditory stimulus, such as music of the voice of a beloved).

Researchers at the University of Iowa have found that when it comes to memory, we don't remember things we hear nearly as well as things we see or touch." (Science Daily February 26, 2014)

Would you care to explain how the your quote has "nothing to do with" the quote from this study?

Additionally,

"The results of the data analysis reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference between visual and auditory short-term memory. As hypothesized, visual short-term memory will have a longer and more accurate duration than auditory short-term memory, because the item being presented is cognitively processed by two different brain functions within short-term memory. The item that is processed visually is digested by a visual receptor within the brain. When an item is presented through auditory receptors, the cognitive process is only thought of as being a form of repletion.
(Differences in Visual and Auditory Short-Term Memory
ELIZABETH HILTON
Communicated by: Dr. R. Gottwald
Department of Psychology Indiana University South Bend)

 

[Stacyhs]

Umm..no. ALL the courts, accepted that Raff had called 112 BEFORE the postal police arrived. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?


Massei used a scream that could not be established as coming from Meredith or even the cottage. He ignored the contradictory evidence in order to fit the TOD to the scream.

Yep. So that Amanda would not be called into work of things picked up. Sheesh.

When Amanda and Raff found the broken window, they were a little bit busy looking through the house, trying to break down the door and calling the police. Calling Filomena was not top priority.

No, you cannot see the broken window through the outside wooden shutter that was partially closed and concealed the broken glass.

When you look at something through guilt colored glasses, that's all you see.

Amanda called Filomena
It was only when Filomena rang HER and the police were just arriving that she even mentioned it. I guess at that point, she had to.[/QUOTE

Think about it. There was no need to "set the stage" in a first call. The same thing would have been accomplished by declaring that she found the broken window during the FIRST call to Filomena. There was not need for 2 calls.


No one has claimed hercould have given an "exact time". But it would have given a narrower time range.

You identify really closely with Amanda, don't you? You think she thinks just like you, to the extent that even if you knew she did it (as I am sure you do) you would justify it as being a logical extension of your personality and entitlement as a Seattle citizen.

LOL. Once again, when you cannot refute the facts, you resort to this kind of junk response. Do you think we don't recognize your tactics by now?

By the way, I am not a "Seattle citizen". I don't even live in Washington.

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh riiiight. Now it's shut, yet a boulder was able to hurl through it.

Now we're back to a "boulder", eh? That gave me a chuckle.

I never said it was "shut". I said it was "partially closed"...which is supported by the photo I supplied. As does the one below.

Of course, it's totally impossible that Guede, after "hurling the boulder" and climbing in, pulled the shutters forward in order to obstruct the view of the broken glass from passersby, right?



Rather than delete this post, I will acknowledge that the shutters were pulled shut and it was the police who partially opened them. Thank you, London John. However, my point still stands that the broken window was not visible to Amanda when she approached the cottage as Vixen falsely claimed.

 

[Stacyhs]

Common knowledge is that you had this wrong. Several people have provided links to prove it.

What I really find fascinating is how you've responded to this. I think anyone else would simply have responded "You're right, I meant minutes and used the wrong symbol." and left it at that. Yet, for some unfathomable reason you simply can't admit you're wrong about anything, even something as simple and easily proven as this. I think it goes a long way towards explaining why you continue to argue things about this case as you do.

Reminds me of someone else. Now, just who could that be?

 

[Mr Fied]

Now we're back to a "boulder", eh? That gave me a chuckle.

I never said it was "shut". I said it was "partially closed"...which is supported by the photo I supplied. As does the one below.

Of course, it's totally impossible that Guede, after "hurling the boulder" and climbing in, pulled the shutters forward in order to obstruct the view of the broken glass from passersby, right?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7166958e69859e66af.jpg[/qimg]

Rather than delete this post, I will acknowledge that the shutters were pulled shut and it was the police who partially opened them. Thank you, London John. However, my point still stands that the broken window was not visible to Amanda when she approached the cottage as Vixen falsely claimed.

 

[LondonJohn]

Now we're back to a "boulder", eh? That gave me a chuckle.

I never said it was "shut". I said it was "partially closed"...which is supported by the photo I supplied. As does the one below.

Of course, it's totally impossible that Guede, after "hurling the boulder" and climbing in, pulled the shutters forward in order to obstruct the view of the broken glass from passersby, right?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7166958e69859e66af.jpg[/qimg]

Rather than delete this post, I will acknowledge that the shutters were pulled shut and it was the police who partially opened them. Thank you, London John. However, my point still stands that the broken window was not visible to Amanda when she approached the cottage as Vixen falsely claimed.

You're correct. And the evidence supports the following chronology in respect of the exterior shutters covering Romanelli's window:

1) At around 8.30pm on 1st November (i.e. prior to any intervention from Guede), the shutters were pulled ajar but not wedged shut. That comes from the testimony of Romanelli, who says she closed the interior shutters fully but only partially closed the exterior shutters.

2) Guede could therefore see, while standing either directly below the window or on the parking parapet overlooking the window, that the exterior shutters were capable of being quickly and easily swung open, in order to present access to the window behind.

3) Guede therefore partially climbed up from below, to the point where he could reach up and open the exterior shutters.

4) Therefore, at the point when Guede threw the boulder rock through the window, the exterior shutters were open (though the interior shutters were still closed - thus explaining the mark on the interior shutters and the trajectory & resting position of the boulder rock within Romanelli's room).

5) Once Guede had climbed in through Romanelli's window (having reached through the broken pane and unlatched the casement), he pulled the exterior shutters closed behind him (for obvious rational reasons which were discussed previously). The shutters were capable of wedging shut (owing to swelling of the wood from damp), but could not be actually latched shut. This would probably all have happened at around 8.45pm

6) Therefore, by the time Mez Kercher returned home at around 9pm, she would not have been able to see the broken pane in Romanelli's window, since it was covered by the exterior shutters that Guede had pulled closed after he entered Romanelli's room.

7) The exterior shutters stayed in this wedged-shut position throughout the period of the confrontation, attack, assault and murder of Kercher, and remained shut once Guede left the cottage that night, and all through the night, and all through the following morning.

8) Therefore, when Knox went to the cottage at around 10.30am that following morning (2nd November), she too could not see any evidence of the broken pane in Romanelli's window as she approached the cottage, since it was still covered by the wedged-shut exterior shutters.

9) The shutters remained wedged shut as concerns mounted about Kercher's whereabouts and welfare. Eventually Knox and Sollecito looked into Romanelli's room from inside the cottage, and could immediately see at that point that the window was broken (since the interior shutters were still open). The exterior shutters remained wedged shut.

10) Then the police arrived and Kercher's body was discovered after her door was broken open. More police arrived, and at some point early in the afternoon of 2nd November, one of the police (or slightly possibly, Romanelli herself) opened the exterior shutters. And that is why the police and press photos taken from mid-afternoon onwards on 2nd November, the exterior shutters are shown in the half-open position.

 

[Bill Williams]

Then the police arrived and Kercher's body was discovered after her door was broken open. More police arrived, and at some point early in the afternoon of 2nd November, one of the police (or slightly possibly, Romanelli herself) opened the exterior shutters. And that is why the police and press photos taken from mid-afternoon onwards on 2nd November, the exterior shutters are shown in the half-open position.

Filomena was allowed to go into her own room both before and after the grisly discovery. The first time even John Follain himself, the most sympathetic to the police/Mignini/the investigation, said that Filomena "rummaged around" presumably to see if anything had been taken.

That first one was perhaps understandable when everyone thought it was simply a very strange robbery. But everything about that room should have been ruled inadmissible. That it was not say buckets about the judges who sat.

The second time she went in to retrieve her laptop, which she surrendered later in the day down at the Questura, IIRC with lawyer in tow. Who knows if and/or when Filomena was the one to manipulate the shutters, not knowing the forensic importance of their initial position.

It's always boggled the mind that anyone can say anything with forensic value about Filomena's room, including the window.

 

[Vixen]

Once again you attack anyone who reports something other than your confirmation bias.

I too doubt Mignini apologized. That's because that IS NOT what Nathaniel Rich reported. Rich reported that Mignini expressed regret. Why is it that you need to engage in strawman inventions?

But it'sclear how your mind works. You conspiratorialize the Netflix folks, you conspiratorialize all the scientific folks, you conspiratorialize the acquitting judges.

Whatever floats your boat.

ETA - "probably"? All you have is a "probably"? Wow, I'm convinced. So - a Rolling Stone reporter is a hack, and you've offered into evidence only a "probably"?

Not a conspiracy. The Netflix film and the ROLLING STONE article are provably inaccurate and more accurately described as PR, than a documentary, or as responsible journalism, the information, provided as it was, by Amanda's mate.

Hellmann was drummed out, so not imaginary.

 

[Vixen]

I missed this one.

Why does Vixen's correspondence keep "ignoring this fact"? Because not one court accept that Raffaele had called 112 BEFORE the postal police arrived, with the possible exception of Nencini's court which called no witnesses with regard.

The Massei motivations report, even in convicting the kids, put the postal's arrival at "just before 1 pm" and after the 112 call.

If you read through Nencini's long discussion on this point, Nencini basically says that he has no reason to distrust the Postals on this point.

Not me, guv. You have misattributed the quote.

I would guess perhaps it is Stacyhs's quote, as her quote formatting doesn't seem to work.

Whoops! Sorry? You won't be taking Stacyhs to task? That's reserved for me, I take it.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not a conspiracy. The Netflix film and the ROLLING STONE article are provably inaccurate and more accurately described as PR, than a documentary, or as responsible journalism, the information, provided as it was, by Amanda's mate.

Hellmann was drummed out, so not imaginary.

No.

Rolling Stone does journalism. Netflix did a documentary.

Once again you invent things you announce that they are PR and don't say why, other than that you disagree with their take.

The scientists you disagree with you call frauds, the judges you disagree with you call lickspittles.

You assert things, you demonstrate nothing.

 

[Vixen]

Attacking Amanda and Raffaele for disrespecting the Kerchers is yet another example of industrial scale vile hypocrisy from PGP. As can be seen from the links below, John Kercher’s book Meredith was riddled with falsehoods and discredited evidence. To write a book accusing someone of committing a murder on the basis of a book full of falsehoods and discredited evidence is a disgusting thing to do and the PGP felt it was perfectly acceptable to do this. Vixen attacks Amanda and Raffaele for being disrespectful to the Kerchers but has no issue with the Kerchers being disrespectful to Amanda and Raffaele. If a person writes a book accusing someone of a crime on the basis of falsehoods, the subject of this accusation has a right to take legal action against the author. Those who attack Amanda and Raffaele for disrespecting to the Kerchers should bear in mind that Amanda and Raffaele did not take legal action against John Kercher over the lies in his book when they had the right to do so.

I have pointed out in the past that PGP have shown disgusting hypocrisy in attacking Amanda and Raffaele for lying when there are numerous occasions when they have lied themselves and supported the lies of others. The support they gave John Kercher is yet another example of this. On Amazon PGP gave glowing 5 star reviews to a book riddled with falsehoods and praise was heaped on John Kercher. PGP felt it was perfectly acceptable for people such as John Kercher to spread lies about Amanda and Raffaele.

http://www.groundreport.com/amanda-...arable-damage-caused-by-wrongful-convictions/

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/amanda-knox-media-lies/

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1870&sid=2f907fb62848a64357ee1fa2e4fe2462

The Kerchers have acted with great dignity and restraint at all times.

We did not see the Kerchers fooling around in the court room in skimpy shorts and vests taking selfies of each other. We didn't hear John Kercher bellowing abuse at the press.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not me, guv. You have misattributed the quote.

I would guess perhaps it is Stacyhs's quote, as her quote formatting doesn't seem to work.

Whoops! Sorry? You won't be taking Stacyhs to task? That's reserved for me, I take it.

So you accept that Raffaele called 112 before the Postals' arrival? Good for you!

 

[Vixen]

Why?

Because she takes the stance that clearly Amanda Knox is innocent? You've also similarly dismissed Hellmann, Dr. Peter Gill, Detective John Douglas, Senator Cantwell, Judge Heavey, Ron Hendry, and pretty much anyone who doesn’t share your totally moronic and whacky view that Knox was involved.

I thought so.

It's telling, is it not, that the legal experts who were at the merits trial who saw and assessed the evidence and testimony, all came to the inescapable conclusion of the kids' guilt.

How coincidental that all the people claiming 'innocence' have barely moved from their armchairs and are 'Friends of Amanda Knox', who probably sucked up the bilge churned out by two-bit hack Nathaniel Rich fed on chewed grass by Mad Pax. Rubbish In Rubbish Out.

 

[Vixen]

Oh, excuse me....I was unaware of your degree in psychology, Doctor. Did you get this degree before or after you became an accountant?

They had everything to do with your statement that





Would you care to explain how the your quote has "nothing to do with" the quote from this study?

Additionally,

"The results of the data analysis reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference between visual and auditory short-term memory. As hypothesized, visual short-term memory will have a longer and more accurate duration than auditory short-term memory, because the item being presented is cognitively processed by two different brain functions within short-term memory. The item that is processed visually is digested by a visual receptor within the brain. When an item is presented through auditory receptors, the cognitive process is only thought of as being a form of repletion.
(Differences in Visual and Auditory Short-Term Memory
ELIZABETH HILTON
Communicated by: Dr. R. Gottwald
Department of Psychology Indiana University South Bend)

My degree in psychology came before my chartered accountancy designation (for LJ, this includes AICPA).

The study you quote is not like for like. These are stimuli presented to subjects, the topic being short-term memory.

However, we are not talking about short-term noises, words, conversations, random beeps. We are talking about a 'harrowing scream'.

Can you see the difference in impact and proportionality. The aural part of the brain is one of the oldest, right at the back (from memory), which indicates it is a deeply instinctive survival mechanism. A scream from a human, has the same effect as a baying animal or squawking bird warning of the presence of a predator. The autonomous nervous system reaction is one of fear, fight or flight. Ms Capezelli felt the scream through her whole being, as did Amanda, who claims she was reduced to crouching in the kitchen, as did Rudy, who came running out of the bathroom (he claims) with his trousers around his ankles.

Conversely, witnesses do not claim to have heard a 'harrowing scream' unless they did.

 

[acbytesla]

It's telling, is it not, that the legal experts who were at the merits trial who saw and assessed the evidence and testimony, all came to the inescapable conclusion of the kids' guilt.

How coincidental that all the people claiming 'innocence' have barely moved from their armchairs and are 'Friends of Amanda Knox', who probably sucked up the bilge churned out by two-bit hack Nathaniel Rich fed on chewed grass by Mad Pax. Rubbish In Rubbish Out.

No, in fact they didn't. You're only including those who testified weakly for the prosecution. You keep ignoring that the Hellman court and the Marasca court both exonerated the pair. So you can keep playing this moronic game of lie and spin, but it doesn't change the facts. We're right and you're wrong.

And so the earth turns.

 

[Vixen]

Umm..no. ALL the courts, accepted that Raff had called 112 BEFORE the postal police arrived. Why do you keep ignoring this fact?

Massei used a scream that could not be established as coming from Meredith or even the cottage. He ignored the contradictory evidence in order to fit the TOD to the scream.

Yep. So that Amanda would not be called into work of things picked up. Sheesh.

When Amanda and Raff found the broken window, they were a little bit busy looking through the house, trying to break down the door and calling the police. Calling Filomena was not top priority.

No, you cannot see the broken window through the outside wooden shutter that was partially closed and concealed the broken glass.

When you look at something through guilt colored glasses, that's all you see.

LOL. Once again, when you cannot refute the facts, you resort to this kind of junk response. Do you think we don't recognize your tactics by now?

By the way, I am not a "Seattle citizen". I don't even live in Washington.

BiWi: please note, the above quote is not mine.

Are you not? I guess you must be more California way.

 

[Vixen]

And there you have it. The person who consistently quotes from TJMK, TMoMK, Follain and Nadeau calls Dempsey a hack.

So what of what Dempsey said is rubbish and where is your evidence of it? I mean, I get that you have no purpose for evidence and with you everything is what Vixen believes, but if you're going to call something rubbish you should at least be able to provide some evidence of that.

And since you never responded (as far as I can tell).. what is the relevance of your claim that blood drys in 30 minutes? What does that tell you about this crime?

The reputation of Candace Dempsey as a rabid Amanda Knox advocate goes before her. At least Nina Burleigh can write, I'll give her that.

 

[acbytesla]

My degree in psychology came before my chartered accountancy designation (for LJ, this includes AICPA).

The study you quote is not like for like. These are stimuli presented to subjects, the topic being short-term memory.

However, we are not talking about short-term noises, words, conversations, random beeps. We are talking about a 'harrowing scream'.

Can you see the difference in impact and proportionality. The aural part of the brain is one of the oldest, right at the back (from memory), which indicates it is a deeply instinctive survival mechanism. A scream from a human, has the same effect as a baying animal or squawking bird warning of the presence of a predator. The autonomous nervous system reaction is one of fear, fight or flight. Ms Capezelli felt the scream through her whole being, as did Amanda, who claims she was reduced to crouching in the kitchen, as did Rudy, who came running out of the bathroom (he claims) with his trousers around his ankles.

Conversely, witnesses do not claim to have heard a 'harrowing scream' unless they did.

I don't believe you have a degree in anything.except fiction writing. I've never seen anyone claim to have knowledge about so many things and yet be so consistently full of it.